I could have guessed Mac VerStandig was in the NRA. He’s so focused on his right to own a gun that he doesn’t put his argument into perspective, so allow me. If the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” is passed, the families of the loved ones shot by the D.C. snipers won’t be able to sue (and thus hold accountable) the gun shop that sold the weapons. Hey, forget about the fact that both suspects were banned from buying guns. Forget that the Taucoma, Wash., store they bought from did not have the sales record for the Bushmaster rifle purchased. Forget that upon an audit of that same store 200 guns were unaccounted for that were supposed to be on the premises.

This, under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is a frivolous lawsuit and so the store would be safe. We could hold gun-making companies accountable for selling their guns to questionable dealers, oh wait not with this new legislation. Who cares whom the dealer sells to or how questionable his practices are, right Mr. VerStandig?

Think about the blanket that the word “misuse” creates. What exactly is a “misuse” of a gun? Who knows? It covers everything and yet nothing all at the same time. A gun is meant to fire a bullet. So if the gun fires a bullet, is that a misuse? If I murder someone, did I misuse the gun? I don’t use a gun to rob a store; I threaten to use the gun. A gun was meant to fire a bullet, if it does, it was properly used.

What Mr. VerStandig proposes we support is legislation that gives our gun industry protection that no other industry has. You can sue a hospital for malpractice for the actions of one of their doctors. You only need to read the news to see what crippling effects frivolous lawsuits have had upon health care. Doctors are quitting because they cannot afford to be doctors; the malpractice insurance is just too high. Why are we adopting legislation saving the gun industry before health care? Even if this legislation should pass, which I think it shouldn’t, why is it for guns only?

Mr. VerStandig asks the question, if technologies are available to prevent unintentional firearms deaths etc, then why aren’t they mandatory yet? Obviously Mr. VerStandig doesn’t pay attention to his NRA mailings. Smith & Wesson made an agreement with the government to adopt some “radical” technologies in an exchange for an end to some lawsuits. They were going to put hidden serial numbers, a trigger lock, and make a plan for better smart-gun technology, which allows a weapon to be fired only by authorized users.

The NRA didn’t like the idea of guns being regulated; hey, it infringes on their right to own a gun or something. So the NRA attacked the company to the point that some dealers refused to stock Smith & Wesson guns. The result: a 40 percent loss of business. Maybe Mr. VerStandig should blame his own organization for the lack of technology before he blames Congress.